The Consumer Protection Act 1999 provides consumers with the right to redress for defects in goods, including within hire purchase agreements, ensuring goods must meet acceptable quality standards.

[1] This is a classic case where, instead of brining joy and pride, the new vehicle brought in misery and many sleepless nights much like the reverse of what was said by Khalil Gibran that "your joy is your sorrow unmasked". In this case, as the facts unfold, the Plaintiff's anticipated joy of acquiring a new vehicle was short-lived. The happiness that was sought never came and instead of unlocking the key to the happiness the Plaintiff unmasked problem and found sorrow the very day he collected the car. Unhappy with his newly acquired happiness which turned to nightmare the Plaintiff launched the action herein. He sought redress from this Court for the return of the purchase price of new Toyota Camry 2.0G car amounting to RM151,706.45 and damages suffered by him as a result of the breach of implied guarantee as to acceptable quality and fitness for the purpose on the part of the Defendants.

[2] The trial commenced and the witnesses who testified for the Plaintiff were as follows:

Witnesses

The witness who gave evidence for the 1st Defendant is as follows:-

And the witness who testified for 2nd Defendant is as follows:

The Plaintiff's Case

[3] The Plaintiff's narrative of the facts is fairly straightforward. He said he wanted to buy a car of Toyota make, more specifically a Camry. So he approached the 1st Defendant being the supplier, importer, distributor and manufacturer of Toyota vehicle in Malaysia. He then identified the colour the model and all the requisite specifications. He was told that a financing can be arranged by the 1st Defendant with the 2nd Defendant being an associate company having same registered address with the 1st Defendant and provides credit facility to the purchasers of vehicles supplied by the 1st Defendant.

[4] The 1st Defendant with the consent of the Plaintiff arranged for a credit facilities from the 2nd Defendant which, as stated earlier, is an associated company under UMW group for a sum of RM80,000.00. The Plaintiff then entered into Hire Purchase Agreement with the 2nd Defendant on 22 March 2010 (Exh. P5).

[5] The Plaintiff paid a sum of RM71,706.45 to the 1st Defendant (exh. P2 and P4).

[6] On 19 March 2010 the 1st Defendant issued vehicle invoice No: 028Y004207 for the sale of a new Toyota Camry 2.0G bearing car registration No. AHC 9928 for the purchase price of RM151,706.45 to the Plaintiff (Exh.P3).

[7] The 1st Defendant delivered the said car to the Plaintiff on 22 March 2010 at 6.05 p.m. (Exh. P6). From then on misery sets upon the Plaintiff, so the Plaintiff claims.

[8] On the day that he collected the car, the Plaintiff complained to the 1st Defendant's Representative, Mr. Micheal Ong Heng Lee that the car was wobbling and the steering was pulling to the left side.

[9] 1st Defendant's representative, Micheal Ong Heng Lee told the Plaintiff to use the car for the first 100 km and later to bring it to the service centre in Taiping.

[10] On 14 April 2010 the Plaintiff brought the said car to the service centre in Taiping. The 1st Defendant checked the car and told the Plaintiff that the wheel alignment and wheel balancing were out of specification. Alignment and balancing of the wheels were then carried out. However when the Plaintiff drove the vehicle, he experienced the same problem. He complained again to Micheal Ong Heng Lee. Mr. Micheal Ong Heng Lee told the Plaintiff to continue using the car for few days.

[11] On 7 May 2010 the Plaintiff complained again to Micheal Ong Heng Lee. The Plaintiff again told to bring the said car to the service centre in Taiping. On 8 May 2010 the Plaintiff brought the car to the service centre in Taiping. After checking, Micheal Ong Heng Lee told the Plaintiff to use the car for 5000 km.

[12] On 30 May 2010 when problem became worse the Plaintiff brought